(Central of Georgia Railway Company PARTIES TO h1SPUTL:


STATEMENT OF CLAII: Carrier did not violate the 4reomont with the Rrotherhood

of Railway, Airline and Steamship (:leeks "by requiring and/or permitting employees of Union Camp Paper Corporation, Savannah, Georgia, to perform schedule clerical work", ac alleged by the Clerks' Organization.


Since the Agreement was not violated, the "senior idle clerical employee, extra in preference, on the ,Savannah District, Sandra L. Schunemann or otherwise" is not entitled to "a day's pay at the rate of the Billing Clerk position, Dillard Yard, Savannah, Georgia, for Mondav, April 7, 1920, and continuing each date", as claimed by the CLer4s' Organization.


OPINION OF BOARD:_ The rlaim brought before the Board by the Carrier involves

the use of a Cathode Ray Tube by employees of one of the major customers of the Carrier's Savannah, Georgia Terminal. The CRT was installed on the customor's rrvmises and ',oean operation on `1nrch 7, lq7R. The customer's employees entered hi !1 of lading information on the CRT which is connected to a terminal in the Carrier's riillard \ard it, Savannah. The n· the 1?R,AC covered emplovecs rise the c'ata in processing waybill information.


There is no dispute that the customer's omployecs Fenerated hills of Ladinl· heretofore and transmitted them to tl,--, 9PAG clerks by messenger, nor that they did not do the mire with waybills.


Here the disputants part company. The Emplovees contend that the Carrier's process, operated by other than RRAC coven,-1 employees, violates the Collective Agr~·('ment by transferring work outside t~,.- unit _y ,irtue of generating wayhiLl information as well. Thus their work is eliminated to their detriment. They assert that "... certain revenue and freight information is now ircludcd on the Union Camp generated wavhills whicF, wns previoUslv _o_niv recorded by Carrier Employees..."









          3) The Employees failed to Prove a violation of the agreement, relying upon the Scope Rule A-1. They offered no evidence only assertions.


          41 The CRT method of transmitting information merely changed the runner of performing the same work, clearly not a v·olation.


          5) The Employees did not document or prove any damages to which any BRAG covered employee would he entitled.


The initial transmission via CRT took place nn March 7, 1978. Claim was tiled by the t:mplovee Organization via letter of the General Chairman Hated ;lay 29, 198(1. The claim called for payment heginninp April 7, 19pC, over two years after the procedure was started. The Employees assert that their is in the nature of a "continuing violation" relying upon Pule C-5 which states "that a claim may he filed at any time for an alleged continuing; violation, however, no monetary claim shall he allowed retroactively for more than C:1) days prior to the filing thereof." They cite the 1971 Award of Third Division No. 18539 wherein the Board c'.oes not bar a claim filed eleven months after the General Chairman was aware of the action which was in dispute.


However, the Award which dealt with work transterral from dispatchers to telegraphers states "Tn the case at bar there is no single event which can he clnssifiod as the 'date of the occurrence on which the claim or grievance is based.' 'the practice in question is clearly a continuing one ..·, and not barred by the i.C day limitation." In this case at bar there is a clearly distinguished date, `larch 7, 1978, anti therefore Award No. 18539 provides no clear Precedent supporting the Employees claim.


The Carrier cites Third Division Award No. 1445('. Herein the Carrier abolished a Section Gang on .July 21, 195E and rho Fml,lnyee Organization presented a claim on November 211, 1959 contendin7 that the alleged violation was a continuing, one. The Award states, "Recent awards of this Poard consistentlv have held that the essential distinction between a continuing claim and a non-continuing claim that is whether the ellek'ed violation in dispute is repeated on more than one occasion or is a separatr and infinitive action which occurs on a particular .late. (Award Nos. 12005 and L0532) .... Tt is undisputed that ... (the action) occurred on or about ,logy 71, 1.058. Therefore, we find the Time Limit Rule is applicable..."


The Carrier also contends that the Employees slept on their rights for over two years, an obviously inordinate amount of time and that the doctrine of Inches is clearly applicable.


The Foard must agree with the <',arrier's position on this matter. The Fmployeos were not unaware of the change of methods via CRT on March 7, 1978 and hail ample opportunity vithin the next sixty (5(1) days to challenge the action on its merit. If the doctrine of Inches has any validity surely two (2) years delay in asserting a claim must fall within the parameter of that principle. And the date of "larch 7, 10711 is distinguishable and unchallenged as the advent of the procedure. Therefore, the subsequent use of the procedure cannot be

                          Award Numher 25497 Pane 3

                          Docket Numher CL-24807


called a continuing violation retroactively after allowing the procedure, without contention or interruption, to proceed for two (2) vears. The A1·reement has not peon violated and the Emrloyve aforesaid is _not entitled to compensation.

 FINDINGS: TI·e Third Division of tl,.- Adjustment Board, after giving thr parties< to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole
 record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

 That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this di.spiite are respectively carrier and IAnloyt~s within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 2I, Lo34;

 That this Division of the Ac!justment Board has jurisdiction ovrr rl-e· dispute invnlvec' h,·rein; and

        That the 111y;rceronc was not .,iolatod.


                        A Id .A K 1)


        The Claim of the carrier is npheld.


                              NATLONAL RAILROAD Al1JDS'P'LNT IinAGr7

                              Bv Order of Thin'. (?ivicinn


A '1 CI;ST:~A~'a
 ..aucy ver - executive Secretary

 Imted at Chicoogo, Illinois, this 13th ddv of June, 10015
            LABOR MEMBER'S DISSENT TO


          AWARD N0. 25497, DOCKET NO.CL-24807

          (REFEREE GEORGE V. BOYLE)


The Majority has erred in this instance as the Award is contrary to the established precedence of Third Division Award No. 18539.

 For the sake of brevity, we will assert that reasoning of the Dissent offered in Docket No. CL-24808, Award No. 25498, is equally applicable in this instance.

 The case law authority on this .issue on the property required a sustaining, award, The Majority erred in not so finding. We must, therefore, strenuously Dissent to Award No. 23497 , and emphasize that Awards out of the norm have no precedential value.

                      William Rler, Labor Member


                      Date June 18, 1985